| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It is often impossible to win an argument on the Internet. I propose that the reason for this is that both parties to an argument may be approaching from a position of defending each party's respective position, rather than approaching the issue from a position of growth. One common problem is inconsistent definition between the two parties. I have observed people using the same term, but with different definitions for that same term. Thus many valid points are otherwise lost in terminology. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager here] for this classic problem. | It is often impossible to win an argument on the Internet. I propose that the reason for this is that both parties to an argument may be approaching from a position of defending each party's respective position, rather than approaching the issue from a position of growth. One common problem is inconsistent definition between the two parties. I have observed people using the same term, but with different definitions for that same term. Thus many valid points are otherwise lost in terminology. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager here] for this classic problem and see [A Colored Man's Perspective here] for some suggestions on harmonizing different points of view. | ||
Revision as of 05:41, 10 February 2017
It is often impossible to win an argument on the Internet. I propose that the reason for this is that both parties to an argument may be approaching from a position of defending each party's respective position, rather than approaching the issue from a position of growth. One common problem is inconsistent definition between the two parties. I have observed people using the same term, but with different definitions for that same term. Thus many valid points are otherwise lost in terminology. See here for this classic problem and see [A Colored Man's Perspective here] for some suggestions on harmonizing different points of view.